AU65 or higher.........
SanctionII
Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭✭✭
......... has this concept ever been used in the hobby?
I have heard of AU58 and AU58+ coins being described as AU62, AU63 and AU64; and selling for MS62, MS63 and MS64 prices.
Why not AU65 and above?
0
Comments
I remember 63 was choice and 65 was gem. May be some hesitancy in calling an AU coin a gem. Just a thought.
At @broadstruck once offered a PCGS Capped Bust Half in AU58 that he advertised as AU66 on the BST (with full disclosure of course) a few years ago. It was actually deserving of the label too, and I have no doubt that it will end up in a lower graded MS holder some day. Who knows where grade inflation will ultimately take it?
Who knows where grade inflation will ultimately take it?
you can't "grade inflate" luster breaks which is what differentiates between AU-MS grades. that sort of talk is nonsense.
I could see an AU58+ with a gold bean maybe go for 63 money but I think after that you'd be playing the crack out game.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
I think it makes a lot more sense to describe a nice AU coin as exhibiting a “choice AU“ or “gem AU” appearance.
While I can understand the concept of “AU62, AU63” etc...I feel that at a certain point, it makes somewhat of a mockery of the grading scale.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The grading scale in my opinion work very well as it is.
Agree. Let's not make it any more complicated.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
That ship has sailed regarding other aspects of grading too.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Maybe so, but I prefer not to assist that ship in sailing further.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have a coin that fits that description.
I agree with @MFeld ... I would prefer the grading system maintain some degree of stability and adding qualifiers or expanding grades just degrades what we have. Cheers, RickO
does anyone have a pic that they care to share here of a coin which might deserve an AU65 or greater grade?
I'm just wondering if this is a hypothetical question or if there really is something out there that would qualify.
the troubling aspect of this thread(and others about AUxx coins) is that they tend to be started and maintained by members who should know better, maybe they don't.
at the heart of the thought process always seems to be that there are coins which appear mark free and nicer than the average MS62-63 graded coin. this is understandable. it is important to understand that surface marks, things such as bag-marks and unstruck planchet flaws which are present on most/many Mint State coins, isn't what differentiates between AU and MS. what matters is breaks in the luster caused by rub/friction.
from the PCGS "Glossary" we have the following:
About Uncirculated
The grades AU50, 53, 55, and 58. A coin that on first glance appears Uncirculated but upon closer inspection has slight friction or rub.
I own several AU58's and a few other AU graded coins but I never fool myself into thinking they aren't what they clearly are.
like lanlord above, please show us these graded AU58's that you guys think are MS65-66's.
@LanLord not quite the 65 you asked for, but this one could be a candidate for AU63 — graded MS63 but with some light rub on the obverse, but an otherwise spectacular coin IMO. Here is the thread where folks, esp @BigMoose taught me something: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1032374/first-ever-old-copper-purchase-thoughts
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
That large cent is technically AU. What would it have to look like to receive a commercial AU grade (58 or 58+), rather than MS63? Does PCGS pricing for this coin in various grades, from 58 to 64, factor into this discussion?
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Lets turn what @Sonorandesertrat said around. What would an true MS63 1837 large cent look like if there was no sign of very light wear and luster breaks as are obvious on the @PocketChange coin. I would content that there would be a few more marks and hits on the coin. Also if you took the @PocketChange coin and removed the very light wear and luster breaks I believe it would grade at least MS64 and maybe even MS65 or better as there appears to be only a couple of marks on the coin. The TPGs are trying to assign a value/price to the coin by the grade they put on the slab and on the @PocketChange coin they think that is around MS63 money. What if the pricing guides had the AU and lower MS grades interleaved, something like this ($ just an example)
XF45 - MS60 - AU50 - MS61 - AU53 - MS62 - AU55 - MS63 - AU58 - MS64 - MS65 ....
$ 5 7 8 15 18 30 35 45 50 60 90
This would make it easier for the TPGs to assign a grade of AU58 to the @PocketChange coin.
Just a thought.
Life member of ANA
Based on the images of that coin alone, I think it's a 64+ with no rub and 63 if it had more marks and rub. I don't know that it's that easy to just interleave grades to get a result. That result may work for the coin in question, but what about others with less eye appeal?
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
The TPGs are trying to assign a value/price to the coin
maybe they should just grade and allow the open market to value/price what they grade.
I think this coin has surfaces that show no real signs of circulation, but is graded as AU. I think it could have graded as high as 64.
While I can agree with you in principle, hasn't that ship already sailed?
I thought I read somewhere that some TPGS are willing to forgive friction on early federal coinage up through MS67.
Edit: It looks like @Sonorandesertrat beat me to it!
There is no money in your approach from continued resubmissions as technical grading is less subjective than market grading (although it too is an art).
They do it. Thinking of it as a constant, gradual changing/redefining of grading "standards." That's why grade inflation is so pernicious and why the coin market has tanked so much. Services like CAC are a direct response. When you start having graders to grade the graders something is amiss. While CAC operates as supposedly identifying "A" and "B" coins, the reality is that most use it as a grade service to weed out all of the garbage that has been given free passes in the past... Not targeted at any specific company.
Well, if technical grading rules the day then most collectors would be left holding the bag. Dealers would only offer greysheet bid for amazing stuff and you’d have to fight to get what the coin is worth. Just like it was back in the day when you had to fight dealers who claimed it was only worth the technical grade disregarding everything else. And rumors/insinuations would still exist that “special” submitters would get breaks that ordinary folk won’t.
In other words, there’s no perfect solution for this perfect problem. Neither technical grading nor market grading solve it. Happens in other hobbies, too. While I don’t like the AU 65 type concept I would probably have a slight variant: skip the G, VF, AU, MS declarative designations entirely (as they are not very helpful anyway) and use only the numbers and then note for these types of pieces (slight circulation/wear/friction/whatever). So one could compare a “65-wear” and “65-no wear” label coin and make the right choice for themselves.
@keets said ;
maybe they should just grade and allow the open market to value/price what they grade.
I agree completely.
Life member of ANA
I posted this thread to seek responses to the topic (which I thought about yesterday while sheltering in place and considered it interesting).
There have been good responses so far, with photos of coins graded AU that look much more attractive and eye appealing than MS examples of the same coin.
To further encourage thoughtful responses consider this:
Take a coin graded by a top tier TPG that is graded MS 67 or MS68. Crack it out of the slab. Take a QTip and rub it gently across the highest point of the obverse devices on the coin to create a single, slight disturbance in the luster of the coin. The former MS67 or MS68 coin is now an AU58+. Should such a coin be marketed and sold as an AU67 or AU68? If such can be done with a coin that has AU64applied to it, why is AU65 and above verboten?
My own view is that a coin such as that described above would be viewed, bought and sold as more than an AU58+.
Your futher thoughts?
>
Quality stuff routinely sells for better than Greysheet even to some dealers. If they want quality coins they will pay up. If not, that's what auctions and direct collector sales are for. Sharks will always exist.
Yes, if you fight for it. Although many times something that was sold as a quality item suddenly becomes generic when you sell it elsewhere... Collectors still lose out. And the heirs of collectors would lose even more as they’d get fleeced. Happened before and it would happen again. Even with the current situation today we all joke about how ownership adds a grade and whoever buys subtracts a grade. Not every collector is savvy enough for auctions or direct sales.
It should be priced at a higher level than AU, but it should be graded for what it is. The problem is the false belief held by many that the lower label number always means a lower value. There is a correlation to be sure but it isn't perfect. The current certified market concept treats coins like standardized commodities that are sold like securities in the stock market rather than for the works of art they are. There is too much variation in quality for that. Unlike a stock, similar coins are not always equivalent.
If they aren't savvy enough for auctions or direct sales, how likely is it that they are going to know their old MS66 is really today's MS67 and tomorrow's 67+ or 68? Market grading is variable as market preferences always change. Your approach leaves grading labels as volatile and subject to unannounced de facto expiration.
It was just a suggestion. I don’t think there’s an answer that solves everyone’s concerns. But there’s more upside to a collector of a 66 that might be 67 now than in a technical grade that might make it 58. Clearly we won’t see eye to eye on this one.
Take a QTip and rub it gently across the highest point of the obverse devices on the coin to create a single, slight disturbance in the luster of the coin. The former MS67 or MS68 coin is now an AU58+.
you don't believe that, do you??
I’ve always felt my 1823 CBH PCGS AU58 would qualify for the “AU63” grade!
It has absolutely no rub or breaks in luster, and is prooflike on both sides as well.
I guess at least someone else thinks it’s actually MS!
I suppose we'll be needing an MS 55 grade for a coin with no wear but is heavily bag marked and has dull luster so it's only worth AU55 money.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Keets.
Of course not.
However if, by definition, the presence of even the slightest high point wear precludes a coin from being MS what should the hobby do with the coin I described in my hypothetical?
Sorry, but that sounds absurd to me. If the coin truly has no rub or breaks in luster, it should be graded MS (something), not AU (anything).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with you! It’s in an older style PCGS AU58 holder with a gold CAC sticker. I’m pretty confident that if I submitted it for regrade that it would come back at least 62.
Dave
There's alot better people than me on this forum and I could be way off but, I don't understand how that grades AU58. MS 63 at a minimum. 64 more likely with a shot at 65.
I don't understand how that grades AU58.
online images are the absolute worst way to judge what is the most important aspect, luster.
It’s tough to capture the luster on this particular prooflike CBH.
Here is the coin straight on in the holder.
And just below is the Stack’s 2002 catalog description of the coin which is from the Queller Collection of Half Dollars. It’s described as Very Choice Brilliant Uncirculated (aka MS64).
Dave
@drddm. Beautiful coin. I bet the trained eye will easily see the luster. Tilt a tad a take another pic and it probably looks like a different coin. Love the shades of blue - Very silky.
Would This MS64 be an AU66?
If the grade doesn't fit, you must resubmit. I bet a 63 PL label would fetch more than a 58 even with a gold CAC. Whatever it's accurate grade, it is a phenomenal piece worth much more than the label grade.